As before explained, the owner of land has a natural right to support for his land from neighboring land, as has the owner of the surface of land from subjacent soil or minerals.50 Such a natural right may be extended or diminished by the creation of an easement in favor of one landowner by the other. The owner of land may accordingly grant to the owner of adjacent land the privilege of withdrawing support from the former's land,51 and the owner of the surface of land may grant to the owner of subjacent soil or minerals the privilege of withdrawing support from the surface.52 But the intention to grant cord, 66 N. H. 562, 32 L. R. A.

621, 34 Atl. 241; Bellows Falls Canal Co. v. Rockingham, 37 Vt.

622. The propriety of referring to water power, that is, the privilege of controlling the fall of water by reason of the location of one's land, as having a distinct situs for the purpose of taxation (as in Quinnebaug Reservoir Co. v. Union

73 Conn. 294, 47 Atl. 328; Moline Water Power Co. v. Cox, 252 111. 348, 96 N. E. 1044) Is not readily apparent.

49. See Trudeau v. Field, 69 Vt. 446, 38 Atl. 162.

50. Ante, Sec.Sec. 345, 346.

51. Ryckman v. Gillis, 57 N. Y. 68.

52. Rowbotham v. Wilson, 8 H.

(or reserve) an easement of this character must clearly appear, and it cannot be inferred from general language, contained in the conveyance by which the ownership of the minerals is severed from that of the surface, although by that language a right to extract all the minerals is apparently recognized.53